Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Lasrick writes: "Joseph Stromberg at Vox makes a good case for changing traffic rules for bicyclists so that the 'Idaho stop' is legal. The Idaho stop allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs, and has created a safer ride for both cyclists and pedestrians. 'Public health researcher Jason Meggs found that after Idaho started allowing bikers to do this in 1982, injuries resulting from bicycle accidents dropped. When he compared recent census data from Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, California — relatively similar-sized cities with comparable percentages of bikers, topographies, precipitation patterns, and street layouts — he found that Boise had 30.5 percent fewer accidents per bike commuter than Sacramento and 150 percent fewer than Bakersfield.' Oregon was considering a similar law in 2009, and they made a nice video illustrating the Idaho Stop that is embedded in this article."

It depends on which you are using at the reference point. If the raw numbers are 40 for city A and 100 for city B, then city A has 150% fewer accidents than city B when city A is the reference point, but 60% fewer when B is the reference point.

Growing up in Washington, we always called a rolling stop a California stop. On the premise that California drivers treated stop signs and speed limits as 'suggestions.' (Washington drivers have always been just as guilty, perhaps we called it that to deflect blame?)
I never heard of an Idaho stop before this article. And I live 30 miles from the Idaho border.

Growing up in Washington, we always called a rolling stop a California stop. On the premise that California drivers treated stop signs and speed limits as 'suggestions.'

The California Stop is a real thing, it's when you slow as you approach the stop sign, see that there's nobody around, and then proceed through. It's an artifact of the fact that at certain times of the day, certain roads are very empty, which in turn is the result of a large state with lots of roads.

Never mind that the laws have little to do with interactions between cyclists and motorists, the attitudes of one towards the other has much more to do with it. In the same way that you can't legislate morality, passing a bunch of laws giving cyclists a different set of rules than motorists isn't going to necessarily make things any safer for cyclists. In fact, it might very well make things less safe overall, if motorists don't like the laws enacted, or like cyclists themselves much in the first place. Eve

IAAC (I Am A Cyclist). However I think that people who treat riding a bike as if they own the road are asking for trouble.

It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way. It matters if someone will see you and stop (and not run you over). When you come up to any dangerous intersection (or any intersection) you should slow down, look to make sure you're not going to get plowed into, and THEN go.

As a cyclist, you might be going 30 KPH easily, but you're much easier to miss for a motorist because you are so small, and you might come at an odd direction (most people aren't used to making sure there's no cyclists on the shoulder).

yes some people are stupid and might get hurt or die. That will happen no matter how stupid people travel. That doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer because of the stupid.

Which is why if I see someone about to cause an accident that might be fatal to me and not them, I should be allowed to launch missles at them, and blast through safely in a ball of fire, james bond style

There is nothing in the regulations that say treating a stop as a yield or a red light as a stop sign somehow gives you any additional right of way. All it means is that you don't have to wait as long to determine if the intersection is safe to cross.

The Idaho Stop / California Roll is all about going slow enough that you can gauge the traffic heading towards the intersection for the other directions to determine if it is safe to move. A stop sign simply 'forces' cars to stop even if it would be otherwise safe to only slow down to a few miles an hour. And a red light forces cars to stop even when you can see for miles in both directions that there is nothing coming.

A car moving slowly can easily kill or do heavy damage to a pedestrian (or another road user). Whereas a bicycle has a much smaller cross section, lower kinetic energy, and a rider that is far more likely to come off badly no matter how small the object/person is that they collide with.

You can't be serious saying it is more dangerous to give way at slow speed versus coming to a complete stop and then having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them.

In fact the article gives clear statistics showing the exact opposite. Just about every cyclist I know treat 'right of way' as synonymous to 'enter at your own risk'.

IAAC as well, and I think this law is good as long as cyclists use some common sense. If you can't see around the corner when approaching a stop sign slow down to around walking speed so you can stop if a car runs right through the intersection, which I've seen some do, even at a 4-way stop. Traffic lights you have to use you're judgment. I wouldn't go making any left hand turns across multilane roads against the light, unless the road was completely deserted.

This is a point that non-cyclists miss: a bike going below (say) 4mph is quite unstable (and at 0mph has to put a foot down). Forcing cyclists to accelerate from a stop -- shifting gears as they do so and worrying about stability -- puts them in a dangerous spot.

They're also moving a lot slower. On surface streets they're often not moving much more than 10-12 mph even when they're moving, so they're getting a good view of the whole intersection for quite some time before approaching it. It's even longer when you take into account that they're slowing down.

I have no trouble believing that it's perfectly safe to have cyclists do a rolling stop when they can clearly see a lack of traffic. The pause is so awkward (especially for cyclists wearing clipless cleats) that t

You can't be serious saying it is more dangerous to give way at slow speed versus coming to a complete stop and then having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them.

The "Idaho Stop" allows you to go when other traffic has to stop. Anybody coming behind you has to stop where you can go.

Additionally, I am not saying that you cannot roll through a red light, ever. The problem is each situation (and danger) is different and you need to be able to judge it yourself, and not just say "Oh I have right of way, let's go!"

Just about every cyclist I know treat 'right of way' as synonymous to 'enter at your own risk'.

That is mostly locale specific. In America, cyclists tend to be more cautious because of the fact cycling is unusual. In Holland, asia, and other places wh

No idea about your local regulations, but in most places cyclists are allowed to ride down the curb side of stationary vehicles. Especially so when there is a bike lane marked. Cars are only allowed to do this if the vehicle is stopped and indicating to turn left (or right in places that drive on the left side of the road). Many places also allow motorbikes to filter between lanes to get to the front when traffic is stopped at lights.

Naturally this maneuvers can be dangerous if the cyclist isn't paying atte

Where I live, bikes are allowed to pass on the right. But, they are also required to obey lane laws. So, if there's a lane to my right, by all means pass on that side. But, if I'm in the right lane and a bike passes using the small space between me and the curb (not a designated bike lane), they're doing it illegally. And they do it all the time.

Really, you would not pass a bicyclist you over took who had just pulled out from a stop sign, which they arrived at before you did? And you would wait behind the bicyclist stopped at the stop sign and not pull up next to them before coming to a stop and then pulling out as soon as you decided it was clear to do so, even though the bicyclist got there first and was just starting? If such is the case, you are so rare that when I used to ride bike a lot I never saw any drivers like you.

I pass cyclists the same as I pass other vehicles - when there is no opposing traffic and it's safe to do so with ample clearance. And yes, if they arrive at the intersection first, they have right of way, just like any other vehicle. And I don't "pull up next to them," unless they're in a different lane. I treat bikes like any other vehicle, and expect them to behave by following the laws common to all vehicles in return.

Bikes are narrow and don't take up a whole lane: it's silly to treat them exactly as cars.

The most sane bike laws I've seen allow bikes to operate in one of two modes:

1) Not occupying a whole lane: ride at the rightmost edge of the right lane without claiming it, drivers are allowed to pass with 3' (preferably 5') clearance. Cars are allowed to "pull up next to them", although they often don't out of courtesy.

2) Occupying a whole lane: a cyclist riding in the middle of the lane is acting like a car and you

You can't be serious saying it is more dangerous to give way at slow speed versus coming to a complete stop and then having to huff and puff back up to speed, while simultaneously being overtaken with inches to spare by a bunch of impatient motorists because you can't outpace them.

Your policy makes perfect sense in normal traffic situations. It begins to fall apart in some situations where abnormal traffic arises and with higher concentrations of cyclists.

I lived in such an area for some years, and I had to commute most mornings through side streets along with hoards of cyclists who basically followed the traffic exceptions you recommend (even though they were supposed to be more cautious). Some old cities have poor urban planning -- streets are narrow, parking is scarce (so peop

One other thing: While the article does give SOME statistics, it is basically what is mentioned in the summary, i.e., numbers from ONE STATE which changed its laws, and a comparison of TWO CITIES that had very similar characteristics.

Anecdote is not data. The fact that things improved in one state after a law change shouldn't be conclusive proof that the same thing would happen elsewhere. And the fact that City X has better stats than very similar City Y is hardly conclusive proof that the policies shou

IAAC (I Am A Cyclist). However I think that people who treat riding a bike as if they own the road are asking for trouble.

It doesn't matter if you SHOULD have right of way. It matters if someone will see you and stop (and not run you over).

Yep, that's how I treat many of my country's traffic laws, e.g. yielding for pedestrians on crosswalks: Fat lot of god it'll do me knowing I had the right of way when I've just run over and killed or badly injured someone. Let them cross, yapping obliviously away on their cellphones.

Or, conversely, if I'm the pedestrian - fat lot of good it'll do me knowing I had the right of way when I'm in a hospital bed with two broken legs. Let them pass, yapping obliviously away on their cellphone.

You misunderstand Idaho Stop, as it never gives right of way to cyclists. The most they get is right of movement when there is no conflicting traffic, in other words when there is no right of way issue. If conflicting traffic is present then that traffic always has right of way over the cyclist at a stop sign or red light.

It certainly doesn't make cyclists "own the road", as you put it, since that's synonymous with having right of way.

This is the proper mentality. Motorcycle user do this all the time. You drive as defensively as you reasonable can so you don't end up an organ donor. Cars do it around transport trucks. With bicycles I think there a conflict of interests regarding the labour intensiveness of the activity that overrides some peoples safety judgement.

How 'bout ticketing the jerks who disrupt traffic by rolling through intersections, break up the 30-bike pelotons, and otherwise make them actually obey the law? Maybe they wouldn't have so mny accidents if the riders weren't abnoxious.

If it had been motorcyclists, rather than bicyclists that tailgated the SoCal guy and hit him when he stopped, there would never have been the travesty of justice as his murder conviction.

Actually, bicycles that don't roll through intersections are more likely to hold up traffic behind them, while having motorists make unsafe overtaking manoeuvres to get around them right near the intersection itself.

Any time someone uses a car (or any object for that matter) to intentionally cause an accident, that person is open to prosecution. Whether it be a douche bag pulling in front of a 30 bike peloton and slamming on their brakes, or opening their door while queued up a traffic light just to stop a motorcyclist from filtering through to the front. That shit is illegal simply because it is someone intentionally causing harm to another person. Just like someone running over an old lady that was taking too long to cross the street; the light goes green on them, and a driver thinks 'fuck it I have right of way, I'll just blow right over the top of her in my oversized SUV'. They definitely don't have the 'right of way' to injure or kill someone.

I'm sure there are many assholes out there who just claim they did what they did for some other idiotic but 'unintentional' reason. But, that doesn't make it right, nor does it guarantee a jury will believe them.

Maybe I'm misreading your post, but If you can't see that road safety isn't just about blindly following regulations, then you should definitely not be driving on the road. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before you end up in court wondering how you got there.

How about ticketing the fuckwit car drivers on phones, rolling through stop signs and otherwise making them obey the law?

Around here (Long Island) they ticket for both. Drivers on phones has been the hot thing to ticket for around here for a few years (and yes I think they should do it). They also ticket for not stopping completely at a stop sign, and I've known plenty of people who've gotten them.

Cyclists? I've never heard of anyone getting a ticket for anything.

As for peletons, I've got no problem with them per se. In fact having a bunch of riders together makes them easier to see, and if you have to pass them on a long nar

Around here cyclists have a sense of entitlement. You can be sitting in your car, at a red light and watch cars and cyclists cross in front of you. When their light turns red and your light turns green, the cars will stop but the cyclists will keep crossing in spite of the red... So you and 100 other cars are sitting at a green light waiting for the stream of cyclists to stop... I've been at the front and started to creep through the green in hopes of signalling that maybe their turn is over... The result is a nice finger gesture... On rural roads, the weekend tour-de-france wannabes ride on the 1 lane highways with no shoulders (the white line on the side of the road is in about 12" and then it's 'ditch')... So legally, you can't pass them if you have a solid line, which especially sucks if they're ascending a long hill at 3mph in the middle of the lane... Because it's a hill, there's a solid center line the whole way and you're stuck there... If you toot the horn in hopes they might consider pulling over and letting the dozen or so cars pass, you again just get the finger... "Fuck you gas-guzzling asshole. I'm out here exercising righteously!"

Yeah; I have a bad attitude... I cycle too but I don't get in everyone else's way...

Pretend like you are new to a bike and you will be much safer and people will hate you so much less. One thing you can do, unless you are a very serious cyclist, is avoid getting the pedals which require cycling shoes. If one is not clipped in, imo, one is less likely to break laws and be a douche about existing ones. For people riding 50+ miles a week, I can understand why they want them. However those are not the people who cause problems for everyone else (in my experience).

And this discusses the merits of the Idaho House Bill 2690 exactly how?

Yes, there are some rules and laws that cover the behavior of cyclists. And you just mentioned a certain subset of them. But why does the way the Idaho Stop governs the cyclist's behavior lead to remarkably less accidents with cyclists and pedestrians?

As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me. Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).

Yup, idiots blasting through red lights is a big no. Thankfully that is not what the article or anyone is proposing. In Idaho, red lights can be treated as stop and go for bicyclist. Running red lights is still illegal, and fines are much higher than other states/cities and are enforced. Bicylist are also allowed to make rolling stops at stop signs. Which means slow down, to make sure the intersection is safe, and yield to other vehicles, and if there is no one, just proceed. Blasting through a stop sign is a big no, too.

As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me. Especially since their view (if they were looking) and mine are likely to be obstructed by the cars & vans they're overtaking (usually on the wrong side).

I'm not sure how relevant that is since those cyclists are breaking both the standard law and the proposed law. Maybe it causes standards to relax so more cyclists ignore traffic signals, or maybe realistic signals cause more cyclists to obey the law.

I think this isn't a bad idea, anyone who rides a bike realizes full stops at stop signs are pointless in a way they aren't in a car. Cyclists have much better vision at an intersection so don't really need a pedantic stop and look around period the way cars do

I RTFA but didn't see anywhere where it suggested riders should be able "blast through" red lights without looking. Your attitude is specifically what causes most of this type of grief in the first place. Most riders also own cars and walk too, so trying to turn this into an us vs them argument just makes you look stupid. The fact that you got modded insightful just goes to show and many idiots there are out there, regardless of what mode of transport they choose.

As a pedestrian, I fail to see why having two-wheeled idiots blasting through red lights is safer for me.

Strawman. Nobody is suggested legalizing the behavior you describe. Also, drivers are blasting through those same lights, at equal or greater speed, presenting far more danger - but you already accept them doing so.

Second: In NYC, 99.9% or so of pedestrian injuries are due to motor vehicle drivers. The remainder are due to collisions with cyclists. The city does not track fault in such collisions.

I didn't know that cyclists stopped for stop signs anyway. I was in Cape Cod, which has some great bike trails (my daughter and I use them). I was driving at the time though, stopped where the bike trail crosses the road, looked around, saw nobody, and proceeded. Somebody went flying across, and the only saving grace was that he swerved to avoid a collision (and I hit the brakes of course). There was a stop sign on the bike path, but at the speed he was going he couldn't have stopped or slowed down for it.

I bike, though not for commuting, and there are a few rules you have to follow. Yes, it's a pain to stop once you've got some speed up, but it's better than getting killed. I'm not saying most cyclists do this, but I felt like blowing off some steam it.

As for the Idaho law, I'm not sure it would work everywhere. What does yield mean? You're supposed to slow down, but by how much? For some cyclists it means glance around quickly before flying through the intersection. As it is, most cyclists don't completely stop at a stop sign, including me, but you've got to use some judgement. Clear view of the intersecting road? Maybe slowing down enough is ok. Blind corner or something? Stop all the way. And the only way to know an intersecting road can be seen clearly is if you've ridden through that area before.

As for comparing Boise to Bakersfield and Sacramento, how about looking at Boise before and after the law changed? Did it actually change anybody's behavior anyway? Has anybody even heard of a cyclist getting a ticket for something like this?

As a Cape Codder, let me tell you it is hell on drivers in the summer. The bike trail has stop signs FOR THE BIKES and caution signs for the drivers, but a sizable number of cyclists blow through the stops. Knowing this, despite the absolute right of way for motorists at these points, I slow to a walking or at least dog-trotting speed in the car at every bike trail intersection, no matter what the conditions are, Usually drivers behind me act like they want to kill me for exercising the caution on behalf of

How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?

Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.

If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.

All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one

How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?

You're implying that there's only 2 sets of existing road rules. As a multiple license holder I assure you it's quite normal and reasonable to have different rules for different classes of vehicles. I have 4 different classes of license, all with different rules.
Perhaps instead of getting all angry you should accept that the current rules aren't working (by the simple fact that you are clearly already all angry about cyclists in relation to the current rule set), therefore the only logical conclusion is for some changes to be implemented?

How about this: the rules of the road, are the rules of the road. They apply for everyone, not just the other guy or what they happen to be in/on: car, bicycle, motorcycle, horse-drawn carriage. Make sense?

One problem is that Idaho isn't known for all its millionaires and entrepreneurs / risk takers, whereas California positively attracts such people. This might not seem like a big deal, but if you have a population for whom it is customary and even expected that risk taking leads to big rewards, versus a population which is, well average, then you have got to expect different outcomes even when the road rules are identical. It is not reasonable to expect that changing the rules on a docile population would

Cars already mostly roll through stop signs unless there is a cop nearby watching, or another car that has right of way. Even so, if its just two cars both can usually go without nary a full second of stop between them. As long as even one of them is actually paying attention it works fine (though sometimes less smoothly)

It seems to me like red lights could use some optimization too. Right turn on red works, you give the right of way to the car moving straight...and it works fine. I don't see why a

This paper is in active rewrite; Please contact the author for the latest version before review if at all possible

So the paper is not even finished and has not been peer reviewed...

You know what also might work? Actually ticketing cyclists breaking traffic laws. As a pedestrian, I nearly got run over by three cyclists pulling an "Idaho Stop" at a cross walk because they were not paying attention.

Also according to the Idaho law, this only applies when the cyclist is turning right, not blowing through an intersection.

Microfilm archives of police incident reports from 1966 to 1992 were consulted over aperiod of days, and deemed too difficult to analyze;

As a cyclist who commutes year-round in Chicago, I just want to give a little shout out to the motorists, who are almost all incredibly polite. It's human nature for us to notice and remember the jerks (and I recall a few) but the incredibly vast majority of motorists are accommodating, friendly, and (when paying attention) cautious.

If I have one request of motorists, it's to get off the cell phones, something I am sure every road user -- pedestrian, cyclist and motorist agrees with.

Rationale #1: "Yield" is just as safe as "Stop", and saves energy for bikers. Problem: It saves energy for cars, too, and if used with cars as bikers use it (slowing to 5MPH), should be just as safe for cars.

Rationale #2: Treating a stoplight as a 1-way stop sign is just as safe for a bike. Problem: Why not treat those stoplights as "Yield" signs, too, if those are safe? Why can't motorists adopt the same not-so-strict rules as bikes, for the same benefits? Also, the lower speed of bikes, combined with the possibility of blind corners and drivers that see the green light long before the biker, seems likely to make this very dangerous in *some* areas, particularly in the dark.

Rationale #3: Eliminate the laws cyclists don't follow, and they'll follow all the rest. Problem: "The rest" include the ones we're changing, because they don't follow them. ie. If they don't stop at stop-signs when there are cars waiting, NOW, why would they do so when they're effectively changed to Yield signs? If cyclists really have figured out the "Idaho Stop" on their own, why aren't the accident rates equally as low, and/or falling quickly?

Rationale #4: "the low-traffic routes that are safer for bikes are the kinds of roads with many stop signs." Problem: Low traffic routes are safer for cars, too. Sounds like we're changing the laws to encourage devaluing a number of roads for cars, in order to provide a biker's oasis.

Rationale #5: "he found that Sacramento had 30.5 percent more accidents per bike commuter and Bakersfield had 150 percent more". Problem: The improvement over Sacramento sounds like a very tiny improvement which could have been caused by any number of minor variables. Additionally, the HUGE GAPING DISPARITY between Sacramento and Bakersfield, both cities without these rule changes, clearly shows that the Idaho stop rules aren't causing these differences, and there's far too much uncontrolled variability to draw any conclusion about the Idaho method.

Where is the evidence... ANY evidence, that this is a positive change?

Oh, I read the article. I just don't see treating a stop as a yield is a safe idea. I am a professional driver trainer, so perhaps my opinion is clouded as to their reasoning. And I think it will open a big can of legal worms as an aside.Also the cities are not comparable, which in my opinion, invalidates the data.Idaho is cold in the winter, (I live in Washington State, right next door.) Bakersfield and Sacramento are not.This of course, is just my opinion.

So, have you ridden a bicycle in a commuting type situation? I've read before that converting many stop signs to yield signs, even for cars, would save all sorts of energy without significant increases in accidents.

With a bicycle it's all about energy conservation. When I'm biking it takes me significantly longer to get up to speed, and my top speed is still well below that of the vast, vast majority of cars.

As such, I typically have much longer to assess an intersection before I reach it, my stopping distance is extremely short, but if you make me stop it extends the time I'll be in the intersection when I DO cross significantly. If I'm allowed to use a stop sign as a yield, I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently. Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there.

As a bonus, this way I'm less in driver's way, making me less likely to piss them off.

As a driving instructor, I have a hard time with 'treating a stop sign as yield," and yes, I know that colors my opinion.

Also, I think a lot of my opinion springs from the gal I hit last summer who slowed for a stop sign and decided (in her words to the cop) "I thought I could make it."Fortunately I slammed my brakes and the impact was at a relatively slow speed, so no injuries.

I realize the 'idea' is to proceed 'only when clear.' Of course you only notice the stupid ones, not the ones who do it safely.

Most likely, I've simply entered the 'old fogey set in his ways period of life......'

As a driving instructor, I have a hard time with 'treating a stop sign as yield," and yes, I know that colors my opinion.

As someone else who is a driving instructor I agree.

"Stop" and "Give Way" (Yield) signs are different for very good reasons. When you reach an intersection you dont need to stop at unless there's another vehicle they'll put in a give way sign so you dont have to stop unless there's traffic. When they install a stop sign, it's because they have good reasons for wanting you to stop.

Then again we dont have insane intersections like 4 way stops, you either have a controlled intersection like a roundabout

It forces everyone to stop, this disrupts traffic rather than keeping it flowing. If you put in a round about, each entrance is treated as a give way (Yield) sign so you can have all four entrances being used at once. On bigger roundabouts, you can have all entrances and exits used at once. The roundabout keeps traffic flowing.

In theory, 4 way stops work but in reality they dont because if you get 4 stopped cars you end up with people negotiating from behind the wheel until someone

The Idaho rolling stop law doesn't make taking your right of way legal. In fact, it makes it illegal. The proposed Oregon law increases the penalty for doing it. If you got to the intersection first in your car, you get the right of way. This is how I treat stop signs when I'm on my bike: if a car got there first, I stop. Unfortunately, they then usually motion me to go, which is really annoying, because I already stopped, so they aren't doing me a favor, but they think they are, so I have to be nice about it. One of the arguments in favor of the rolling stop law is that it avoids this annoying dance—drivers know what the law is, and are more likely to follow it, and so do bicyclists. The problem with the law in many states now is that it's bogus, so bicyclists and drivers collaborate to violate it.

It's really funny when someone says "I'm a professional, so my opinion matters more than the data." Well, maybe funny is the wrong word.

No, this means that you don't understand physics. If I come to a full stop and then go, I am going slower, so the time during which I am exposed to cross traffic is longer, which increases the likelihood that I will get hit. So at two-way stops, any bicyclist with a strong sense of self-preservation and long lines of sight goes through the stop sign without stopping. It doesn't mean that we blast through without slowing down, but we do try to keep as much speed as we safely can. Life is full of tradeoffs...

The article's proposal is that they treat stop signs as yield signs, in which case they would - wait for it - yield to you.

Bingo. I wonder why so many detractors aren't willing to have even a pseudonym attached to their posts...

Take the AC's description of: "I stop. I check cross traffic. I see you, a cyclist, approaching your stop sign. I start to go, but since you had no intention of stopping, I hit you."

No intention of stopping? Perhaps, but in the given situation I'm slowing down. The AC, seeing the intersection is clear, proceeds through. Assuming no other traffic, once he's proceeding through, I speed up to cross just

You didn't mention this gem:
"I'll attempt to time my passage such that I'll cross near my maximum speed, clearing the intersection expediently. Being through quicker reduces the chances I'll be involved in an accident there."

Assuming for the moment that we accept this reasoning, might this then be an argument for drivers, too, to accelerate when approaching stop signs, so that they might also minimize the time spent in an intersection?

Since you aren't a bicyclist, it's a bit shirty to claim that they "genuinely believe" anything. You don't know what people "genuinely believe" unless you are a psychic who can read minds, in which case we'd like some proof before we trust you.

Their reasoning is that cyclists don't obey the rules anyway, so why not legalize the behavior so they have one more way to bitch about cars not yielding to them.

Seriously, I live near a university town, and cyclists are terrible about obeying traffic laws, they'll glide through stop signs, ride the sidewalks when convenient, etc. Then they'll turn around and complain that cars don't treat them as equals on the roadway. Well, you can't have it both ways, if you want to use the right-of-way, you need to follow the same rules as everyone else. I have no sympathy for the self-righteous assholes. (not all, but a very large and visible number behave that way)

If it's safe for a bike to glide through stopsigns or treat all stoplights as signs, then it's safe for motor vehicles to do the same. In fact, it's recognized that this is sometimes the case - that's why there are blinking red lights. There's no reason to give bikes any special treatment.

Blinking red lights have not met the uniform traffic code for 50 years and exist only due to local budget issues.
And bicycles are not treated equally on the road. For example most cars will pass a bike in a no passing zone. In some cases a no passing zone may last for several miles and you don't see a line of cars crawling along at 12 mph. which they would be doing if they actually obeyed the law. And then we come to the Interstate hwys. and turnpikes. Notice that they almost always have

Flashing red signal indications shall have the following meanings:
1. Vehicular traffic, on an approach to an intersection, facing a flashing CIRCULAR RED signal
indication shall stop... The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules
applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign...

As a quick check, both CA and FL laws reflect that usage, as is to be expected.

TN state law: If you are travelling slower than 10mph under the speed limit and you have three or more vehicles behind you, you are required to pull over or off the road to let those vehicles pass. Who's breaking the law now.

Some jurisdictions have exceptions to no-passing to allow for overtaking slow or stationary obstacles in any case.

In many developed countries now, road and petrol taxes are essentially punitive taxes: the state wants to make driving more expensive so that more people choose to use public transportation (or cycle) instead. As cyclists are not harming the environment or contributing to gridlock on city roads, then there is no reason they should be expected to pay the tax. Maintenance of roads is out of the general state budget anyway, not just paid from the taxes extracted from drivers.

Does not using the road include public transport? Can I get a lift with a mate? Am I allowed to cross the road if I don't pay road tax? My kids play out on the road, it's a quiet neighbourhood....should I stop them?

OK, so let's make a fair road tax for the cyclist. What could be fairer than basing it on how much damage a vehicle does to the road? So let's charge cyclist just $5 (or equivalent thereof per year), and have everyone pay proportionately to road damage.

Since road wear goes up approximately at the fourth power of axle weight, a bike has usually around no more than 50kg per axle. A small car is about 600kg per axle, so causes roughly 20,000 times as much road wear and so to be fair should pay 20,000 times more. Now how about that $100K a year road tax? Too much? Well to tax the cyclist fairly, the amount would have to be so tiny it's not worth collecting.

Parent is likely talking about license tab taxes and gas taxes. In most states in the US it doesn't matter what your financial situation is, you still have to pay the license tax and the gas tax if you want to drive.

Mine was not a truly serious comment, it was to be taken as a response to a typical cyclist argument: "We want to be treated the same as cars when it benefits us, but we want to ignore the rules for cars when it benefits us, and we also want special treatment which benefits us." They (not all, but a significant number) come off as self-centered assholes.

To those cagers who blame cyclists for ignoring laws, I point out in Kansas, a motor vehicle is supposed to give a bike 3 feet of clearance. They don't, and the law is never enforced.

Last time I checked, "but moooooooom" was not a legal defense for breaking the law.

As in, "but moooooooom, the car drivers get to break laws, and no one goes after theeeeeeeem".

I'm sorry, but the answer to that isn't to give you a free pass to break laws, it is to crack down on the car drivers.

Now, to address your post: The reason bikes should have more latitude than cars or trucks is that bikes, considering their smaller mass and lower power, are much less likely to cause injury to another road user. Bikes can safely ignore many traffic laws meant for cars and trucks.

Right, because the injuries that you could cause are totally the reason for the laws. It isn't like we're worried about the injuries you might sustain. Which if it were just yourself involved, I'd say "go for it

Whoa, what country are you from? Blinking yellow is a yield, just like any 2 way stop intersection. When you don't have a stop sign in your direction, it is, and has always been, an implied yield. The yield signs just emphasize the point because a lot of people won't yield properly and think they own the road.

Here in the United States, in the state of Oregon, a blinking yellow is a cautionary signal, it is not a yield. Here is the driver's manual [state.or.us] as a reference. Same rules in the state of Washington [wa.gov] and Calfornia [ca.gov]. I haven't checked the rest of country but to my knowledge the rules for basic traffic signals are consistent across the entire US.

Traffic is not homogenous, it travels in waves. I ride a motorcycle (amonsgt others), and by lane splitting through stopped traffic, then gunning it at the green it allows me to sit in an empty space of road inbetween the waves of ignorant drivers drinking their coffees, putting on makeup, and texting on their phones while driving. By riding in the gaps and not amongst the hordes it is safer for me, so I imagine the "Idaho Stop" allows cyclist something similar.

Except for one little thing. On your motorcycle you're moving at the same speed as traffic. A bicyclist Is slowing down the same same wave of traffic that managed to maneuver around it before the traffic light. Basically they're just slowing down even more traffic clogging up the same cars more than once.

I hear that argument a lot, but I've very rarely seen a line of cars behind a bicycle for any appreciable time. I've bike commuted most of my working life (~20+ years) and don't recall ever seeing such a situation in morning or evening rush hour traffic.

For the past 15 months or so I've had a 35 mile each way commute across LA county (from the Pasadena area to the South Bay- if it were permanent I'd move). I do it with a combination of freeways and surface streets (faster through downtown LA). Do you know

Snow is iresome, making the ride uncomfortable, slower, and more risky.Even small amounts of ice make the ride practically impossible.During a turn on a bike there's a significant lateral stress against the tire. On slipery surface you just fall, period. With snow or mud the tire squeezes a track, keeping some traction. On ice it just slips.

I use a bicycle as my primary means of transport year-round, in Sweden.

The main issue I have is that I often have to slow down not just to compensate for road conditions as such but also for motorists who don't realize that even with studded tires a cyclist might not want to ride as aggressively in winter as they do in summer (by "aggressively" I mean more "trusting others not to run you down after they've clearly seen you" than "break the law", in summer my brakes work flawlessly and if Mrs Soccer Mom or Mr Middle Management in their late-model Volvo decide to suddenly try to bully me out of the way I can hit the brakes or accelerate quickly, in winter such aggressive moves will cause me to fall and get run over by the idiot in question so I ride much more defensively which seems to annoy a lot of motorists).

FYI, I tend to stick to bicycle paths when possible but some have been taken over by pedestrians (who have the right of way on bike paths here in Sweden, "yay") to the point where it's faster and mostly safer to ride on a parallel street than zigzag between pedestrians who are walking four abreast and paying no attention to cyclists and other times the bike paths were clearly laid out by someone who doesn't cycle him-/herself and doesn't realize that looping a bike path around an entire city block is likely to be an unpopular move.

So let me get this straight, you start off by whining about car users "bullying" you to get past you, and then in the second part of your post you state that pedestrians have right of way on your cycle paths but you feel they should pay attention to you and get out of your way?

This is precisely why cyclists have such a bad reputation - the superiority complex, the belief that both cars and pedestrians alike should cater to them.

Look it's great that you cycle - but consider this: those pedestrians walking fo

It's better to spell out the exceptions than to simply capriciously enforce the existing laws. Poor enforcement leads to contempt for the law.

Speeding enforcement is a good example. It is so poorly enforced that nearly everyone exceeds the speed limit on nearly every stretch of road they travel on. The degree to which people do so, though, varies quite a bit. Is "10 over" ok? If 10 why not 20, you're already breaking the law (*)...

(*) in states where it is illegal to exceed the posted limit. In "prima

In the UK, "Give Way" (i.e. "yield") signs outnumber them 100-to-1 or more. You normally only find Stop signs at blind junctions (mostly in places where the road layout hasn't changed since the middle ages).

Invert that ratio and you get the US.

Basically, traffic laws in the US are optimised to generate maximum fine revenue for the local police so they are designed to create as many violations as possible with no regard for safety. At the extreme end of the scale you've got red light cameras which might as well be called "murder cameras" for the number of people they kill.

The evidence is very clear that if you actually want safety on roads the way to get it is with fewer or no rules and signs, but since that di